User login
Ten changes that could keep clinicians in the workforce in a pandemic
Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.
“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.
“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”
Among the other action items are:
- Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
- Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
- Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
- Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
- Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.
The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine
Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost
Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.
She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.
“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.
Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.
“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.
Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.
“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”
Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.
“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.
Favorable reactions to list
Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”
Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.
Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.
“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement
Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.
The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.
According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.
“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.
The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
Related research
A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.
The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.
Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.
The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”
Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.
“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.
“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”
Among the other action items are:
- Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
- Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
- Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
- Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
- Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.
The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine
Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost
Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.
She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.
“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.
Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.
“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.
Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.
“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”
Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.
“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.
Favorable reactions to list
Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”
Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.
Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.
“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement
Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.
The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.
According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.
“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.
The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
Related research
A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.
The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.
Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.
The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”
Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
Indeed, a recent poll of 1,000 health care workers conducted Sept. 2-8 by Morning Consult, showed that 18% of medical workers polled quit their jobs during the pandemic. Additionally, 31% said they had at least thought about leaving their work.
“As physicians, educators, peers and friends of COVID-19 responders, we are gravely concerned about our colleagues’ exhaustion, burnout, and disillusionment,” wrote lead author Eileen Barrett, MD, and coauthors of the new action plan, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The 10-point, one-page checklist includes providing “practical support in the areas that clinicians identify as causing emotional stress or moral injury,” such as managing anger and grief when patients have chosen not to be vaccinated or confronting misinformation.
“Those are the things that are making people’s mental health worse” psychiatrist Jessi Gold, MD, MS, said in an interview. “I don’t think I’ve seen that mentioned other places.”
Among the other action items are:
- Reduce administrative tasks that are not “mission critical,” such as mandatory training that has no evidence of improving patient outcomes and meetings that could be skipped.
- Offer free and confidential resources to support clinicians’ mental health, such as easy access to crisis hotlines and peer support groups.
- Maintain transparency about personal protective equipment and contingency plans when there are shortages to restore trust.
- Encourage clinicians to use vacation time; leaders should model this.
- Implement suicide prevention strategies, including wellness check-ins for clinicians in hard-hit areas.
The action plan was based on the authors’ own experiences and the stories of colleagues and information in literature. It includes 10 changes health care leaders could make to help retain providers who may be on the brink of leaving their jobs or leaving medicine
Action items intended to be easily achievable, low cost
Dr. Barrett, who is a hospitalist in Albuquerque, said the goal was to present easily achievable and low-cost action items that clinicians and health care leaders could use as a starting point when change seems insurmountable and evidence on what works is slow to come.
She said one of the things that spurred her to coauthor the list was becoming aware of other clinicians’ “secret shame” in thinking about leaving medicine.
“Maybe a person who is not being listened to could take this journal article and say ‘we don’t know where to start. It looks like we can start here,’ ” said Dr. Barrett, who is also an associate professor in the division of hospital medicine, department of internal medicine, at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
She noted that some of the good ideas floated around did not make the list, because they required daunting budget commitments and too much time to put into place.
Numerous other proposed solutions were of the wrong tone, according to Dr. Barrett.
“It’s not just about a hug or a piece of pizza,” she said.
Dr. Gold, who is an assistant professor at Washington University, St. Louis, and specializes in the mental health of health care workers, noted that, even though the list was pared to 10 action items, it is still hard for health care organizations to prioritize mental health.
“Many hospitals are still struggling with the active bleed of the pandemic and financially recovering,” she said. “If you’re dealing with a full ER and people are still dying of COVID and you don’t have the resources to support them, it’s really hard to then find magic money to deal with mental health. I’d love for that to be true.”
Every organization, however, can start with removing questions about mental and physical health diagnoses from credentialing and employment applications, which is one of the items on the list, she said.
“It’s the lowest-bar thing that you can fix for making people in crisis not fear getting help,” she said. That change must come on a state-by-state and individual hospital level.
Favorable reactions to list
Dr. Barrett, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, said the reactions to the checklist have been “overwhelmingly favorable and appreciative.”
Eric J. Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, tweeted about this list: “For COVID-19, more than ever before, it’s vital to keep clinicians in the U.S. health care workforce. These are 10 steps that will help.” The tweet was retweeted more than 100 times.
Lotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, a primary care physician and codirector of the program on physician well-being at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview that managing the anger around patients who choose to be unvaccinated is critical and something that has gotten little notice since the vaccines became available.
“Physicians and nurses are working extremely hard and seeing a lot of suffering and are taking care of patients very sick with COVID-19, knowing they had access to the vaccine. That is causing anger and frustration. We haven’t prepared health care workers to deal with that,” she said.
Outside expert: Not all items may be easy to implement
Dr. Dyrbye said that, though she found adding time to address COVID misinformation questions in appointments is very important, it may be wishful thinking.
The authors suggested training other members of the care team to answer those questions to free up time, but she said, for patients who have been swayed by misinformation, hearing information from someone other than the physician they have a relationship with won’t be convincing.
According to Dr. Dyrbye, the items on the list are not easy to implement, but the action plan is worthwhile to consider adopting as a multipronged approach.
“Most of these things are hard and we need to be in it for the long run,” she said.
The need is clear for efforts to address the mental health of not just experienced clinicians but those in training as well, she noted.
Related research
A study that was also recently published in the Annals of Internal Medicine suggested that making a few simple changes can help improve the mental health of residents. The research, which included nearly 17,000 first-year residents who started training between 2007 and 2019, addressed indicators of mental health in light of interventions such as limiting residents’ work hours and providing more services.
The investigators found that, though depression remains high among residents, depressive symptoms among first-year residents dropped 24.4% from 2007 to 2019 in parallel with four main factors: an increase in mental health services; restrictions on work hours for residents; more sleep hours; and higher-quality feedback from faculty.
Dr. Barrett said she hopes her colleagues and health care workers everywhere will find some solace in seeing that the new checklist she coauthored was published in a prominent journal.
The message Dr. Barrett said she hopes they see is: “Someone is validating it is not in their head. They are validating we can do better. They are validating that we must.”
Dr. Barrett and coauthors had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Gold and Dr. Dyrbye also disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Genomic screening of healthy newborns gets more popular
Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.
Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.
The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.
“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”
But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.
The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.
“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”
When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.
Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness
Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.
This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.
“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”
Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.
For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.
Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.
“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”
Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.
“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.
But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.
What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.
“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
Follow-up and treatment needed
Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.
“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.
Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.
The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.
“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.
But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.
Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.
The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.
“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”
But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.
The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.
“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”
When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.
Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness
Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.
This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.
“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”
Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.
For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.
Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.
“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”
Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.
“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.
But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.
What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.
“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
Follow-up and treatment needed
Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.
“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.
Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.
The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.
“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.
But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.
Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.
The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.
“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”
But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.
The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.
“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”
When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.
Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness
Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.
This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.
“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”
Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.
For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.
Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.
“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”
Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.
“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.
But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.
What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.
“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
Follow-up and treatment needed
Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.
“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.
Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.
The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.
“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.
But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Second U.S. COVID-19 case caused by Omicron found
A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.
The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before. He sought testing on Nov. 24. His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health. The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.
He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.
“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”
The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.
This breaking news story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.
The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before. He sought testing on Nov. 24. His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health. The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.
He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.
“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”
The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.
This breaking news story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.
The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before. He sought testing on Nov. 24. His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health. The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.
He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.
“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”
The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.
This breaking news story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Expert shares top five atopic dermatitis–related questions he fields
Will my child outgrow the eczema?
That is perhaps the No. 1 atopic dermatitis–related question that Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, fields from parents in his role as chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
The answer “is pretty tricky,” he said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “We used to say, ‘yeah, your kid will probably outgrow the disease,’ but we now have good data that show there are variable courses.”
Using data from the birth study cohort known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, researchers in the United Kingdom investigated the existence of different longitudinal phenotypes of AD among 9,894 children. They found that 58% of the children in the cohort were unaffected or had transient AD, while 12.9% had early-onset/early-resolving AD. The remaining AD phenotypes consisted of 7%-8% patients each (early-onset persistent, early-onset late-resolving, mid-onset resolving, and late-onset resolving).
“There have been several studies that looked at the natural course of AD,” said Dr. Eichenfield, distinguished professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “A cohort study from Thailand showed that 50% of patients with childhood AD lost their AD diagnosis about 5 years into it, while there was an increase in allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma, similar to what’s been seen in atopic march studies,” he noted.
A separate group of investigators analyzed records from The Health Improvement Network in the UK to determine the prevalence of AD among more than 8 million patients seen in primary care between 1994 and 2013. They found that the cumulative lifetime prevalence of atopic eczema was 9.9% and the highest rates of active disease were among children and older adults. “The takeaway was markedly inconsistent in terms of whether AD went away over time or increased over time, so it’s really not especially helpful prevalence data,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Overall, you have a high prevalence in the first years of life, it decreases, and it may increase again when people are 60 years and older. Whether that’s truly AD or xerotic eczema isn’t known in this data set.”
A separate meta-analysis of 17 studies reported that 26% of adults with AD said they had adult-onset disease, which is characterized by more atopy, more foot dermatitis, and less flexural involvement.
Dr. Eichenfield tells parents, “there’s a really good chance (depending on disease severity) that 60% to 70% of children will outgrow their eczema or most of it,” he said. “If you ask me when, I won’t tell you. The important thing is to treat it to minimize its impact. We want minimal rash, minimal itch, and minimal sleep disturbance. Sometimes I say, ‘that might improve the chance of the eczema getting better over time.’ ”
Following are four other common questions parents and patients ask him:
Can we figure out the allergies causing the eczema? “This is probably one of the most unnerving questions I get asked,” he said. “It’s a loaded question. My answer is that allergies are intertwined with AD. Searching for the secret allergy causing the atopic dermatitis is rarely successful.” Sensitization is much more common with AD, he added, meaning specific IgE testing, whether it be blood testing or skin prick testing. “The more severe your eczema is, the more chance you’ll have of real food allergy,” he said. “About 15% of milder eczema patients will have at least one food allergy, but when you get to the more moderate to severe cases, about 40% will have a true food allergy.”
Food reactions may not cause eczema, though. Food reactions can cause urticaria, angioedema, eczematous dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and respiratory findings. According to National Institutes of Health guidelines for food allergy, skin prick tests and serum IgE tests are recommended to assist in identification of foods that may be provoking IgE-mediated food reactions, but are not diagnostic of food allergy.
“There’s a huge literature showing that there’s a lot of food allergy testing that’s just not helpful,” he said. In one study, 89% of food challenges administered in patients who were listed as being allergic based on skin prick tests or serum IgE tests did not have a true food allergy.
“Empiric elimination diets aren’t especially useful. However, we occasionally see children who do have AD exacerbated by food allergies in the first year of life,” he said. NIH guidelines suggest that children younger than 5 years of age with moderate to severe AD be considered for food allergy evaluation for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, if at least one of the following conditions is met: the child has persistent AD in spite of optimized management and topical therapy, and/or the child has a reliable history of an immediate reaction after ingestion of a specific food.
“We do know that there are high rates of comorbid allergic processes, besides food allergy, associated with atopic dermatitis, including allergic rhinitis and asthma both in children and adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do discuss allergy triggers and their importance in the life of the individual, though not necessarily as factors in AD. There are a variety of environmental allergens and/or environmental triggers that can significantly impact AD. Recently, we have seen studies discussing air pollution and wildfires as exacerbators of AD.”
How should I bathe and moisturize? There are no standard guidelines for the frequency, type, or duration of bathing in patients with AD, he said, though in more severe disease, frequent bathing can be helpful along with standard anti-inflammatory topical medicines. “I keep my general recommendations vague,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do explain that we don’t want to use harsh soaps; we want to be gentle in our washing. I usually recommend daily to every other day bathing. It’s important to pat the skin dry and then apply a moisturizer. Applying a moisturizer 2-3 minutes after bathing is important and limited significant cleanser use can be helpful.”
Moisturizers and emollients are a standard of care in U.S. guidelines published in 2013 and 2014, and international guidelines, and are steroid-sparing and useful for both prevention and maintenance. “I tell parents and patients that there is no reason to avoid bathing because of AD as long as you moisturize after,” he said.
Do I have to use topical [name of drug]? “I try to explain that there is skin barrier dysfunction that stimulates the inflammatory milieu, and that inflammation in the skin or blood in AD negatively impacts skin barrier function,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I explain that if inflammation doesn’t get better with good skin care, moisturizers, and avoidance of triggers, we need anti-inflammatory medication. Then we discuss what the options are, the significant variation in strengths of topical corticosteroids, and topical nonsteroid options.”
When he counsels parents and patients on the use of topical corticosteroids, he tells them that cortisone is a naturally-occurring metabolite, and that “we can work together to let you know how much medicine to use, and how a safe amount is a powerful tool to fix the eczema.” He often says that topical steroids “are like hammers. We have tiny hammers, like over-the-counter hydrocortisone, and sledgehammers like clobetasol. We also have ‘screwdrivers’ and ‘pliers’ with nonsteroidal topical calcineurin and PDE-4 inhibitors, which are especially useful for maintenance therapy. Topical ruxolitinib is a new medicine that we may use for patients as well. The label includes discussion of side effects from oral JAK inhibitors as well as from the drug development program, so it takes some time to talk through.”
Is it time for a stronger systemic medicine? Any conversation about this topic should support the concept that the AD is multifactorial. “We have the rash of eczema,” he said. “We have the itch. We have impact on sleep disturbance. We have the comorbidities. We have other physical changes, which can happen with bacterial infections and other immune system or cardiovascular changes. We have the impact on quality of life and impact on school and work. When we recognize that if patients have significant enough disease that it is not getting better with topicals and is having a negative impact on their lives, we can move our discussion to systemic therapy.”
When counseling patients about systemic therapy, Dr. Eichenfield will conduct a body surface area assessment and document how bad the itch is. “But I’m not just recording the information; I’m bringing it out in the room,” he said. “I’ll do a BSA assessment and say, for example, ‘oh, you have 32% of your body involved with eczema.’ I ask about sleep disturbance, to get the answer ‘out in the room.’ ” He also asks questions such as: “When was the last time your skin was last totally clear? Are there activities that you or your family don’t do because of your eczema, or that you’re living your life around it? Is there anxiety or depression?” Documenting both the impact on quality of life and the severity of disease “makes it easier to discuss systemic therapy,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Meanwhile, as the provider, I am trying to figure out if the patient should ‘go into the topical therapy bucket’ or into the ‘systemic therapy bucket.’ ”
Counseling about systemic therapy includes shared decision-making regarding the choice of biologics versus oral JAK inhibitors versus traditional systemic agent or phototherapy. Factors to consider in the decision making include patient age, sex, severity, comorbidities, prior therapy, risk aversion, duration, medication access, and desired efficacy. “Evolving therapies can change the conversation, the questions, and the outcomes, but the overarching desired outcome is long-term disease control, minimal eczematous rash, minimal pruritus, and minimal sleep disturbance,” he said.
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for AbbVie; Almirall; Arcutis; Arena; Asana; Termagant; Dermira; Forte Biosciences; Galderma Laboratories; Glenmark/Chinos; Incyte; Kyowa Kirin; Leo Pharma; Eli Lilly and Company; Novartis; Ortho Dermatology; Otsuka; Pfizer; Freestone; Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Will my child outgrow the eczema?
That is perhaps the No. 1 atopic dermatitis–related question that Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, fields from parents in his role as chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
The answer “is pretty tricky,” he said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “We used to say, ‘yeah, your kid will probably outgrow the disease,’ but we now have good data that show there are variable courses.”
Using data from the birth study cohort known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, researchers in the United Kingdom investigated the existence of different longitudinal phenotypes of AD among 9,894 children. They found that 58% of the children in the cohort were unaffected or had transient AD, while 12.9% had early-onset/early-resolving AD. The remaining AD phenotypes consisted of 7%-8% patients each (early-onset persistent, early-onset late-resolving, mid-onset resolving, and late-onset resolving).
“There have been several studies that looked at the natural course of AD,” said Dr. Eichenfield, distinguished professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “A cohort study from Thailand showed that 50% of patients with childhood AD lost their AD diagnosis about 5 years into it, while there was an increase in allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma, similar to what’s been seen in atopic march studies,” he noted.
A separate group of investigators analyzed records from The Health Improvement Network in the UK to determine the prevalence of AD among more than 8 million patients seen in primary care between 1994 and 2013. They found that the cumulative lifetime prevalence of atopic eczema was 9.9% and the highest rates of active disease were among children and older adults. “The takeaway was markedly inconsistent in terms of whether AD went away over time or increased over time, so it’s really not especially helpful prevalence data,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Overall, you have a high prevalence in the first years of life, it decreases, and it may increase again when people are 60 years and older. Whether that’s truly AD or xerotic eczema isn’t known in this data set.”
A separate meta-analysis of 17 studies reported that 26% of adults with AD said they had adult-onset disease, which is characterized by more atopy, more foot dermatitis, and less flexural involvement.
Dr. Eichenfield tells parents, “there’s a really good chance (depending on disease severity) that 60% to 70% of children will outgrow their eczema or most of it,” he said. “If you ask me when, I won’t tell you. The important thing is to treat it to minimize its impact. We want minimal rash, minimal itch, and minimal sleep disturbance. Sometimes I say, ‘that might improve the chance of the eczema getting better over time.’ ”
Following are four other common questions parents and patients ask him:
Can we figure out the allergies causing the eczema? “This is probably one of the most unnerving questions I get asked,” he said. “It’s a loaded question. My answer is that allergies are intertwined with AD. Searching for the secret allergy causing the atopic dermatitis is rarely successful.” Sensitization is much more common with AD, he added, meaning specific IgE testing, whether it be blood testing or skin prick testing. “The more severe your eczema is, the more chance you’ll have of real food allergy,” he said. “About 15% of milder eczema patients will have at least one food allergy, but when you get to the more moderate to severe cases, about 40% will have a true food allergy.”
Food reactions may not cause eczema, though. Food reactions can cause urticaria, angioedema, eczematous dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and respiratory findings. According to National Institutes of Health guidelines for food allergy, skin prick tests and serum IgE tests are recommended to assist in identification of foods that may be provoking IgE-mediated food reactions, but are not diagnostic of food allergy.
“There’s a huge literature showing that there’s a lot of food allergy testing that’s just not helpful,” he said. In one study, 89% of food challenges administered in patients who were listed as being allergic based on skin prick tests or serum IgE tests did not have a true food allergy.
“Empiric elimination diets aren’t especially useful. However, we occasionally see children who do have AD exacerbated by food allergies in the first year of life,” he said. NIH guidelines suggest that children younger than 5 years of age with moderate to severe AD be considered for food allergy evaluation for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, if at least one of the following conditions is met: the child has persistent AD in spite of optimized management and topical therapy, and/or the child has a reliable history of an immediate reaction after ingestion of a specific food.
“We do know that there are high rates of comorbid allergic processes, besides food allergy, associated with atopic dermatitis, including allergic rhinitis and asthma both in children and adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do discuss allergy triggers and their importance in the life of the individual, though not necessarily as factors in AD. There are a variety of environmental allergens and/or environmental triggers that can significantly impact AD. Recently, we have seen studies discussing air pollution and wildfires as exacerbators of AD.”
How should I bathe and moisturize? There are no standard guidelines for the frequency, type, or duration of bathing in patients with AD, he said, though in more severe disease, frequent bathing can be helpful along with standard anti-inflammatory topical medicines. “I keep my general recommendations vague,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do explain that we don’t want to use harsh soaps; we want to be gentle in our washing. I usually recommend daily to every other day bathing. It’s important to pat the skin dry and then apply a moisturizer. Applying a moisturizer 2-3 minutes after bathing is important and limited significant cleanser use can be helpful.”
Moisturizers and emollients are a standard of care in U.S. guidelines published in 2013 and 2014, and international guidelines, and are steroid-sparing and useful for both prevention and maintenance. “I tell parents and patients that there is no reason to avoid bathing because of AD as long as you moisturize after,” he said.
Do I have to use topical [name of drug]? “I try to explain that there is skin barrier dysfunction that stimulates the inflammatory milieu, and that inflammation in the skin or blood in AD negatively impacts skin barrier function,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I explain that if inflammation doesn’t get better with good skin care, moisturizers, and avoidance of triggers, we need anti-inflammatory medication. Then we discuss what the options are, the significant variation in strengths of topical corticosteroids, and topical nonsteroid options.”
When he counsels parents and patients on the use of topical corticosteroids, he tells them that cortisone is a naturally-occurring metabolite, and that “we can work together to let you know how much medicine to use, and how a safe amount is a powerful tool to fix the eczema.” He often says that topical steroids “are like hammers. We have tiny hammers, like over-the-counter hydrocortisone, and sledgehammers like clobetasol. We also have ‘screwdrivers’ and ‘pliers’ with nonsteroidal topical calcineurin and PDE-4 inhibitors, which are especially useful for maintenance therapy. Topical ruxolitinib is a new medicine that we may use for patients as well. The label includes discussion of side effects from oral JAK inhibitors as well as from the drug development program, so it takes some time to talk through.”
Is it time for a stronger systemic medicine? Any conversation about this topic should support the concept that the AD is multifactorial. “We have the rash of eczema,” he said. “We have the itch. We have impact on sleep disturbance. We have the comorbidities. We have other physical changes, which can happen with bacterial infections and other immune system or cardiovascular changes. We have the impact on quality of life and impact on school and work. When we recognize that if patients have significant enough disease that it is not getting better with topicals and is having a negative impact on their lives, we can move our discussion to systemic therapy.”
When counseling patients about systemic therapy, Dr. Eichenfield will conduct a body surface area assessment and document how bad the itch is. “But I’m not just recording the information; I’m bringing it out in the room,” he said. “I’ll do a BSA assessment and say, for example, ‘oh, you have 32% of your body involved with eczema.’ I ask about sleep disturbance, to get the answer ‘out in the room.’ ” He also asks questions such as: “When was the last time your skin was last totally clear? Are there activities that you or your family don’t do because of your eczema, or that you’re living your life around it? Is there anxiety or depression?” Documenting both the impact on quality of life and the severity of disease “makes it easier to discuss systemic therapy,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Meanwhile, as the provider, I am trying to figure out if the patient should ‘go into the topical therapy bucket’ or into the ‘systemic therapy bucket.’ ”
Counseling about systemic therapy includes shared decision-making regarding the choice of biologics versus oral JAK inhibitors versus traditional systemic agent or phototherapy. Factors to consider in the decision making include patient age, sex, severity, comorbidities, prior therapy, risk aversion, duration, medication access, and desired efficacy. “Evolving therapies can change the conversation, the questions, and the outcomes, but the overarching desired outcome is long-term disease control, minimal eczematous rash, minimal pruritus, and minimal sleep disturbance,” he said.
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for AbbVie; Almirall; Arcutis; Arena; Asana; Termagant; Dermira; Forte Biosciences; Galderma Laboratories; Glenmark/Chinos; Incyte; Kyowa Kirin; Leo Pharma; Eli Lilly and Company; Novartis; Ortho Dermatology; Otsuka; Pfizer; Freestone; Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Will my child outgrow the eczema?
That is perhaps the No. 1 atopic dermatitis–related question that Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, fields from parents in his role as chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego.
The answer “is pretty tricky,” he said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “We used to say, ‘yeah, your kid will probably outgrow the disease,’ but we now have good data that show there are variable courses.”
Using data from the birth study cohort known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, researchers in the United Kingdom investigated the existence of different longitudinal phenotypes of AD among 9,894 children. They found that 58% of the children in the cohort were unaffected or had transient AD, while 12.9% had early-onset/early-resolving AD. The remaining AD phenotypes consisted of 7%-8% patients each (early-onset persistent, early-onset late-resolving, mid-onset resolving, and late-onset resolving).
“There have been several studies that looked at the natural course of AD,” said Dr. Eichenfield, distinguished professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “A cohort study from Thailand showed that 50% of patients with childhood AD lost their AD diagnosis about 5 years into it, while there was an increase in allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma, similar to what’s been seen in atopic march studies,” he noted.
A separate group of investigators analyzed records from The Health Improvement Network in the UK to determine the prevalence of AD among more than 8 million patients seen in primary care between 1994 and 2013. They found that the cumulative lifetime prevalence of atopic eczema was 9.9% and the highest rates of active disease were among children and older adults. “The takeaway was markedly inconsistent in terms of whether AD went away over time or increased over time, so it’s really not especially helpful prevalence data,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Overall, you have a high prevalence in the first years of life, it decreases, and it may increase again when people are 60 years and older. Whether that’s truly AD or xerotic eczema isn’t known in this data set.”
A separate meta-analysis of 17 studies reported that 26% of adults with AD said they had adult-onset disease, which is characterized by more atopy, more foot dermatitis, and less flexural involvement.
Dr. Eichenfield tells parents, “there’s a really good chance (depending on disease severity) that 60% to 70% of children will outgrow their eczema or most of it,” he said. “If you ask me when, I won’t tell you. The important thing is to treat it to minimize its impact. We want minimal rash, minimal itch, and minimal sleep disturbance. Sometimes I say, ‘that might improve the chance of the eczema getting better over time.’ ”
Following are four other common questions parents and patients ask him:
Can we figure out the allergies causing the eczema? “This is probably one of the most unnerving questions I get asked,” he said. “It’s a loaded question. My answer is that allergies are intertwined with AD. Searching for the secret allergy causing the atopic dermatitis is rarely successful.” Sensitization is much more common with AD, he added, meaning specific IgE testing, whether it be blood testing or skin prick testing. “The more severe your eczema is, the more chance you’ll have of real food allergy,” he said. “About 15% of milder eczema patients will have at least one food allergy, but when you get to the more moderate to severe cases, about 40% will have a true food allergy.”
Food reactions may not cause eczema, though. Food reactions can cause urticaria, angioedema, eczematous dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and respiratory findings. According to National Institutes of Health guidelines for food allergy, skin prick tests and serum IgE tests are recommended to assist in identification of foods that may be provoking IgE-mediated food reactions, but are not diagnostic of food allergy.
“There’s a huge literature showing that there’s a lot of food allergy testing that’s just not helpful,” he said. In one study, 89% of food challenges administered in patients who were listed as being allergic based on skin prick tests or serum IgE tests did not have a true food allergy.
“Empiric elimination diets aren’t especially useful. However, we occasionally see children who do have AD exacerbated by food allergies in the first year of life,” he said. NIH guidelines suggest that children younger than 5 years of age with moderate to severe AD be considered for food allergy evaluation for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, if at least one of the following conditions is met: the child has persistent AD in spite of optimized management and topical therapy, and/or the child has a reliable history of an immediate reaction after ingestion of a specific food.
“We do know that there are high rates of comorbid allergic processes, besides food allergy, associated with atopic dermatitis, including allergic rhinitis and asthma both in children and adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do discuss allergy triggers and their importance in the life of the individual, though not necessarily as factors in AD. There are a variety of environmental allergens and/or environmental triggers that can significantly impact AD. Recently, we have seen studies discussing air pollution and wildfires as exacerbators of AD.”
How should I bathe and moisturize? There are no standard guidelines for the frequency, type, or duration of bathing in patients with AD, he said, though in more severe disease, frequent bathing can be helpful along with standard anti-inflammatory topical medicines. “I keep my general recommendations vague,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do explain that we don’t want to use harsh soaps; we want to be gentle in our washing. I usually recommend daily to every other day bathing. It’s important to pat the skin dry and then apply a moisturizer. Applying a moisturizer 2-3 minutes after bathing is important and limited significant cleanser use can be helpful.”
Moisturizers and emollients are a standard of care in U.S. guidelines published in 2013 and 2014, and international guidelines, and are steroid-sparing and useful for both prevention and maintenance. “I tell parents and patients that there is no reason to avoid bathing because of AD as long as you moisturize after,” he said.
Do I have to use topical [name of drug]? “I try to explain that there is skin barrier dysfunction that stimulates the inflammatory milieu, and that inflammation in the skin or blood in AD negatively impacts skin barrier function,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I explain that if inflammation doesn’t get better with good skin care, moisturizers, and avoidance of triggers, we need anti-inflammatory medication. Then we discuss what the options are, the significant variation in strengths of topical corticosteroids, and topical nonsteroid options.”
When he counsels parents and patients on the use of topical corticosteroids, he tells them that cortisone is a naturally-occurring metabolite, and that “we can work together to let you know how much medicine to use, and how a safe amount is a powerful tool to fix the eczema.” He often says that topical steroids “are like hammers. We have tiny hammers, like over-the-counter hydrocortisone, and sledgehammers like clobetasol. We also have ‘screwdrivers’ and ‘pliers’ with nonsteroidal topical calcineurin and PDE-4 inhibitors, which are especially useful for maintenance therapy. Topical ruxolitinib is a new medicine that we may use for patients as well. The label includes discussion of side effects from oral JAK inhibitors as well as from the drug development program, so it takes some time to talk through.”
Is it time for a stronger systemic medicine? Any conversation about this topic should support the concept that the AD is multifactorial. “We have the rash of eczema,” he said. “We have the itch. We have impact on sleep disturbance. We have the comorbidities. We have other physical changes, which can happen with bacterial infections and other immune system or cardiovascular changes. We have the impact on quality of life and impact on school and work. When we recognize that if patients have significant enough disease that it is not getting better with topicals and is having a negative impact on their lives, we can move our discussion to systemic therapy.”
When counseling patients about systemic therapy, Dr. Eichenfield will conduct a body surface area assessment and document how bad the itch is. “But I’m not just recording the information; I’m bringing it out in the room,” he said. “I’ll do a BSA assessment and say, for example, ‘oh, you have 32% of your body involved with eczema.’ I ask about sleep disturbance, to get the answer ‘out in the room.’ ” He also asks questions such as: “When was the last time your skin was last totally clear? Are there activities that you or your family don’t do because of your eczema, or that you’re living your life around it? Is there anxiety or depression?” Documenting both the impact on quality of life and the severity of disease “makes it easier to discuss systemic therapy,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Meanwhile, as the provider, I am trying to figure out if the patient should ‘go into the topical therapy bucket’ or into the ‘systemic therapy bucket.’ ”
Counseling about systemic therapy includes shared decision-making regarding the choice of biologics versus oral JAK inhibitors versus traditional systemic agent or phototherapy. Factors to consider in the decision making include patient age, sex, severity, comorbidities, prior therapy, risk aversion, duration, medication access, and desired efficacy. “Evolving therapies can change the conversation, the questions, and the outcomes, but the overarching desired outcome is long-term disease control, minimal eczematous rash, minimal pruritus, and minimal sleep disturbance,” he said.
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for AbbVie; Almirall; Arcutis; Arena; Asana; Termagant; Dermira; Forte Biosciences; Galderma Laboratories; Glenmark/Chinos; Incyte; Kyowa Kirin; Leo Pharma; Eli Lilly and Company; Novartis; Ortho Dermatology; Otsuka; Pfizer; Freestone; Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM THE MEDSCAPELIVE LAS VEGAS DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
Rapid COVID-19 tests will soon be covered by insurance
and mask mandates will be extended for air, rail and bus travelers through at least mid-March.
The measures are part of a suite of new actions President Joe Biden is expected to announce later today, Dec. 2, in the wake of the arrival of the Omicron variant in the United States. The White House’s initiatives are designed to fight an expected winter surge of COVID-19 infections, according to sources familiar with the president’s plans.
At about $24 per package, rapid COVID-19 testing remains prohibitively expensive for many, even after a promise to bring the tests to Americans at a wholesale cost.
Other countries have rapid tests available for free or about $1 per test, and many experts say more frequent use of rapid tests could help stop transmission of COVID-19 virus.
About 150 million Americans would be eligible for reimbursement for rapid tests through their insurance plans.
In addition to those steps, international travelers flying into the United States will soon be required to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 24 hours of their departure, whether they are vaccinated or not.
In keeping with the six-part plan to fight COVID-19 the administration outlined in August, the president’s new plan is centered around vaccinations for all eligible Americans, including booster doses for the estimated 100 million adults who are now at least 6 months past their second doses of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or 2 months past a Johnson & Johnson shot.
Those plans, which relied on vaccine mandates for most workers, have been stymied by recent court rulings blocking implementation of those requirements.
As the issue makes its way through the courts, Biden is expected to call on companies to voluntarily implement vaccination requirements for their workers, which he says are helping to close vaccination gaps.
Biden is also expected to outline a new push to get booster shots to all adults, with an emphasis on reaching seniors, who are at greatest risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
The president is scheduled to speak at 1:40 PM on Dec. 2 at the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
and mask mandates will be extended for air, rail and bus travelers through at least mid-March.
The measures are part of a suite of new actions President Joe Biden is expected to announce later today, Dec. 2, in the wake of the arrival of the Omicron variant in the United States. The White House’s initiatives are designed to fight an expected winter surge of COVID-19 infections, according to sources familiar with the president’s plans.
At about $24 per package, rapid COVID-19 testing remains prohibitively expensive for many, even after a promise to bring the tests to Americans at a wholesale cost.
Other countries have rapid tests available for free or about $1 per test, and many experts say more frequent use of rapid tests could help stop transmission of COVID-19 virus.
About 150 million Americans would be eligible for reimbursement for rapid tests through their insurance plans.
In addition to those steps, international travelers flying into the United States will soon be required to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 24 hours of their departure, whether they are vaccinated or not.
In keeping with the six-part plan to fight COVID-19 the administration outlined in August, the president’s new plan is centered around vaccinations for all eligible Americans, including booster doses for the estimated 100 million adults who are now at least 6 months past their second doses of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or 2 months past a Johnson & Johnson shot.
Those plans, which relied on vaccine mandates for most workers, have been stymied by recent court rulings blocking implementation of those requirements.
As the issue makes its way through the courts, Biden is expected to call on companies to voluntarily implement vaccination requirements for their workers, which he says are helping to close vaccination gaps.
Biden is also expected to outline a new push to get booster shots to all adults, with an emphasis on reaching seniors, who are at greatest risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
The president is scheduled to speak at 1:40 PM on Dec. 2 at the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
and mask mandates will be extended for air, rail and bus travelers through at least mid-March.
The measures are part of a suite of new actions President Joe Biden is expected to announce later today, Dec. 2, in the wake of the arrival of the Omicron variant in the United States. The White House’s initiatives are designed to fight an expected winter surge of COVID-19 infections, according to sources familiar with the president’s plans.
At about $24 per package, rapid COVID-19 testing remains prohibitively expensive for many, even after a promise to bring the tests to Americans at a wholesale cost.
Other countries have rapid tests available for free or about $1 per test, and many experts say more frequent use of rapid tests could help stop transmission of COVID-19 virus.
About 150 million Americans would be eligible for reimbursement for rapid tests through their insurance plans.
In addition to those steps, international travelers flying into the United States will soon be required to show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within 24 hours of their departure, whether they are vaccinated or not.
In keeping with the six-part plan to fight COVID-19 the administration outlined in August, the president’s new plan is centered around vaccinations for all eligible Americans, including booster doses for the estimated 100 million adults who are now at least 6 months past their second doses of a Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or 2 months past a Johnson & Johnson shot.
Those plans, which relied on vaccine mandates for most workers, have been stymied by recent court rulings blocking implementation of those requirements.
As the issue makes its way through the courts, Biden is expected to call on companies to voluntarily implement vaccination requirements for their workers, which he says are helping to close vaccination gaps.
Biden is also expected to outline a new push to get booster shots to all adults, with an emphasis on reaching seniors, who are at greatest risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19.
The president is scheduled to speak at 1:40 PM on Dec. 2 at the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
Retinopathy risk in children higher in T2D than T1D
Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.
Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.
“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.
The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.
The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.
The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.
These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.
“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.
“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.
While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.
She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”
Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.
“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.
Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.
This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.
Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.
“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.
The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.
The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.
The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.
These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.
“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.
“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.
While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.
She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”
Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.
“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.
Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.
This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.
Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.
“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.
The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.
The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.
The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.
These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.
“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.
“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.
While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.
She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”
Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.
“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.
Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.
This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
AHA statement on impact of major life events on physical activity
Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.
The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.
The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.
“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.
The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
Some more vulnerable than others
The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.
The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.
They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.
“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.
“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.
The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”
The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.
This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.
The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.
The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.
“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.
The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
Some more vulnerable than others
The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.
The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.
They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.
“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.
“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.
The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”
The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.
This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.
The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.
The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.
“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.
The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
Some more vulnerable than others
The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.
The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.
They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.
“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.
“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.
The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”
The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.
This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Misinterpretation is a science, not an art
It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear
We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?
Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.
Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.
In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.
That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.
Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
Singing … your … lungs … out
There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.
A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.
After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.
So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
And the word of the year is …
Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.
We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”
Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.
Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!
It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear
We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?
Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.
Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.
In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.
That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.
Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
Singing … your … lungs … out
There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.
A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.
After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.
So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
And the word of the year is …
Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.
We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”
Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.
Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!
It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear
We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?
Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.
Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.
In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.
That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.
Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
Singing … your … lungs … out
There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.
A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.
After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.
So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
And the word of the year is …
Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.
We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”
Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.
Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!
SGLT2 inhibitor use tied to fewer atrial arrhythmias
Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.
The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).
In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?
“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”
The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.
The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.
The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.
At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).
Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.
The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias
A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.
The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.
On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.
A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.
The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.
In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.
Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.
The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).
In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?
“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”
The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.
The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.
The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.
At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).
Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.
The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias
A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.
The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.
On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.
A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.
The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.
In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.
Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.
The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).
In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?
“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”
The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.
The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.
The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.
At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).
Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.
The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias
A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.
The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.
On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.
A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.
The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.
In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.
FROM AHA 2021
Poorly controlled asthma predicts COVID-19 hospitalization in children
Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.
Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.
Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.
The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.
Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.
The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).
When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.
These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.
In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.
The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.
The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.
“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma
“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.
“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.
Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.
“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.
“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.
Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.
The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.
Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.
Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.
The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.
Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.
The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).
When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.
These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.
In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.
The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.
The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.
“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma
“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.
“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.
Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.
“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.
“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.
Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.
The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
Children and adolescents with poorly controlled asthma were three to six times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 infections, based on data from a national study of more than 750,000 children in Scotland.
Although the majority of COVID-19 cases in children have been mild, some children require hospitalization, wrote Ting Shi, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh (Scotland) and colleagues.
Vaccination policies to potentially reduce infection and hospitalization of children remain inconsistent, the researchers said. Identifying which school-age children would derive the greatest benefit from vaccination “could help to reduce the risk of infection and consequently the need for children to have time off school; and might also reduce the risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2 within schools and households,” but the potential benefits of vaccination for children with asthma in particular have not been well studied, they wrote.
The United Kingdom’s Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunisation commissioned research on the rates of hospitalization among children with poorly controlled asthma. In a national incidence cohort study published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from all children aged 5-17 years in Scotland who were enrolled in the linked dataset of Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II). The total number of children in the dataset was 752,867, and 63,463 (8.4%) of these had diagnosed asthma. Among the children with asthma, 4,339 (6.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and July 27, 2021. A total of 67 infected children were hospitalized. Of the 689,404 children without asthma, 40,231 (5.8%) had confirmed COVID-19 infections, and 382 (0.9%) of these children were hospitalized.
Overall, hospital admission rates for COVID-19 were significantly higher among children with asthma, compared to those without asthma (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.49), and the rates increased among children with poorly controlled asthma.
The researchers used previous hospital admission for asthma as a measure of uncontrolled asthma, and found that hospitalization was at least six times as likely for children with poorly controlled asthma, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 6.40), although children with well-controlled asthma also had an increased risk of hospitalization, compared with those with no asthma (aHR, 1.36).
When the researchers used oral corticosteroid prescriptions as an indicator of uncontrolled asthma, the adjusted hazard ratios were 3.38, 3.53, 1.52, and 1.34 for children with prescribed corticosteroid courses of three or more, two, one, and none, respectively, compared with children with no asthma.
These hazard ratios remained significant after controlling for factors including age, sex, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and previous hospital admission, the researchers wrote.
In an age-based analysis, results were similar for children aged 12-17 years, but in children aged 5-11 years, the hospitalization risk decreased for those with one course of corticosteroids and reached the highest rate for those with three or more courses, rather than two courses.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively small numbers of COVID-19 hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and deaths in children with asthma, the researchers noted. Other limitations include potential changes in asthma control over the study period, and lack of data on certain confounders such as tobacco use, unsuitable housing, and ethnicity, they noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large, national dataset, and access to electronic health records, they said.
The findings reflect data from previous studies suggesting increased risk of hospitalization for patients with respiratory illness who develop COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote.
The results emphasize the importance of good asthma control to protect children from severe COVID-19, and careful monitoring of children with poorly controlled asthma who do become infected, they added.
“The findings from this linkage of multiple data sources have helped inform the prioritisation of school-aged children with poorly controlled asthma for vaccines,” they concluded.
Findings support value of vaccination for children with asthma
“Pediatricians see many children who suffer from asthma, and although one could assume that these children would have more serious consequences from contracting COVID-19, the current study examines a large database in a way not possible in the United States to address the severity question,” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The authors used prior hospitalization rate or two prescriptions for oral corticosteroids as markers of asthma severity prior to the onset of COVID-19 in Scotland, and they collected retrospective data for 16 months of the pandemic through July of 2021, showing a significant increase in hospitalization for those children,” she said. Dr. Boulter said she was not surprised by this finding, given the impact of COVID-19 on the respiratory system.
“Pediatricians have found significant challenges from some groups of parents when discussing the indications and need for vaccination in their patients,” said Dr. Boulter. “Having this data on the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in children with asthma might help parents who are uncertain about the risk/benefit ratio of the vaccine make their decision,” she said.
Dr. Boulter said she hoped that additional studies will yield ongoing information about hospitalization rates for COVID-19 not only about asthma, but also other diagnoses affecting children in the United States and worldwide.
“It would also be important to see a breakdown of ethnic factors and adverse childhood experiences and how they relate to hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Dr. Boulter said.
“The results of this study are not surprising, as we have known for a long time that children with severe asthma are more susceptible to severe respiratory viruses,” Francis E. Rushton, MD, a pediatrician in Beaufort, S.C., said in an interview. “But the study is still important, as it helps us determine which children are most urgently in need of protection from COVID-19 in any of its forms,” he emphasized. In particular, the current study underlines the importance of vaccinating children with unstable asthma, Dr. Rushton said.
Going forward, “it would be interesting to do additional studies looking at other markers for poor asthma control that could guide our vaccine efforts so that they are focused on those most at risk,” he added.
The study was supported by the UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, and the Scottish Government. Lead author Dr. Shi had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rushton and Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but each serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.
FROM THE LANCET